When does speech become violence???

This editorial in the Washington Post highlights an issues that I believe is a critically important issue, have passionate feelings about, but am also conflicted.  Free Speech.

The article has two primary subjects.  One is the difference between European and US ideas about when racist speech is free and when it is not.  The Europeans are much more likely to make speech a criminal offense when it involves demographic-based hate - justifying this by calling it an incitement to violence (i.e. not just speech).  In the US, we require a lot more evidence of incitement.   We value the basic freedom of speech, no matter how ugly and hateful.  I am proud of this and cringe when I see how often groups jump to criminalize speech that they don't like. 

The other subject is the challenge that international access to user-generated content creates for creating practical and enforceable laws that match these different views (and others) on issues like speech.  If someone in the US writes a tweet/blog/etc that is legal on the US criteria but not in Europe, what happens when someone in Europe reads it and files a grievance?  Or if someone in Europe posts one on a US service?  The hateful speech is stored on a US server, but during the access copies are made on servers in both continents. Does this count?  Do we need some kind of internationally consistent regulation?  I would hate for us to give up our stronger protections.  Do we have some kind of international treaty where we decide together that it is where the author is located that matters? 

When international differences are economic, it's easy to resolve them by splitting the difference.  But when it involves a fundamental value, compromise is harder to do.  It feels wrong, the compromise might still violate your values, and no one is happy. 

Secretary of State Conspiracy Theory

I have a suspicion about the GOP support for John Kerry as the new Secretary of State.  As soon as Hillary Clinton announced her intention to step down - months and months ago now - they started pushing him as a candidate who would breeze through confirmation because of his exceptional credentials and qualifications.  This is in stark contrast to what they said about him as Presidential candidate in 2004.   It is also in stark contrast to what they said about Susan Rice.

So what is my suspicion?  I think it has nothing to do with Secretary of State.  I think they remember Scott Brown winning a special election for Senator of Massachusetts just a few years ago.  I think they see this as a way to claw back one of the Senate seats they lost in 2012.  Scott Brown would be the favorite to win the seat if he decides to run.  If Kerry doesn't get State, they have to wait several more years and the voting public's memory of Scott Brown could start to fade.  A Democrat would have plenty of time to build up their grassroots and fundraising machine in a largely Democratic state. 

Perhaps part of the reason they were so vehemently against Susan Rice was that they wanted Kerry back in the running for State.  The Senate is really close and one more vote could make a huge difference.  Is that too cynical, even for me?

Voting for Senator

I think this is a worrisome fact of life in today's national politics.

There is a close race for Senate in your home state.  The Dem and GOP candidate are both moderates and acceptable, but one is a little better.  You want to vote for that one.  But the Senate is likely to split 50/50 nationally.  If that candidate gets in, it not only determines who sits in that seat, it also determines which party runs every committee - Budget, Armed Services, Judiciary, etc.  The committee chairs set priorities and markup Bills.  The balance of power might have more of an impact on the world than the particular Senator who gets elected from your state. 

And yet, the candidates for committee chairs are extremists on both sides. The GOP leaders are all right wing conservatives.  The Dem leaders are all liberal tax and spenders.  So it really doesn't matter which candidate you like better in your home state race.  You feel forced to vote for the candidate in the party whose leaders scare you the least. 

That sucks.

Supreme Court docket - Dog sniffing

The title of this one makes it sound like a joke, but it would not have reached the Supreme Court if it weren't important.  It is really about what makes a search by authorities (police, homeland security) reasonable (or unreasonable) according to the 4th Amendment.  

The Founding Fathers were against search without probable cause.  The justification is a great example of our strong belief in the value of liberty.  Without the 4th Amendment, the authorities could harass someone either because they thought they might have done something but really have no clue or just to be annoying to someone they don't like.  The searches could be disruptive to the person's life, embarrassing (the search could discover something not illegal but that the person would rather keep quiet, such as an addiction to lolcats) or uncover something that is illegal but that the authorities didn't know about previously and just got lucky.  

So - on to dog sniffing.  When people search, they can see the embarrassing or illegal items along the way.  But dogs are trained to signal when they smell one specific thing.  Drugs.  Cash.  Produce (at the border being brought in illegally through Customs).  So if the police have the right to search only for drugs, using dogs ensures that they won't identify anything else.  The dog can stop at the door (or not open the suitcase).  So in theory, using a dog eliminates the unreasonableness of a search that would be intrusive if it were done by a person.

So if the police don't have a warrant to search a house for drugs, they can bring a dog that is trained only to signal the presence of drugs to the front door.  If the dog smells drugs, that would be probable cause for a warrant to enter.  If not, nothing else is discovered and there is no harassment or inconvenience to the resident.

So is this a good balancing act for liberty and safety?  The Supreme Court will let us know this term.

Is a meritocracy the best society?

I always thought it was a nobrainer than a meritocracy was hands down the best kind of society to live in.  People who are the best at things should make it to the top.  People who are lucky enough to be born into a family or group that did well in the past should have to compete equally with everyone who wasn't.  What could be wrong with that?

Well, an intriguing blog post by Patricia Kaszynska as a guest blogger for Matthew Taylor has me thinking again. I still think it is the best model in general, but perhaps it needs a few more tweaks than I ever could have imagined.

Here are the caveats she brings up:

1.  If you are at the top because you are the best, and the people around you are also at the top because they are the best, what does that do to your attitude towards everyone else?  In plutarchies, there was usually a paternalistic attitude - they took care of the masses as an obligation for their status.  If not for the masses, there wouldn't be a plutarchy.  But in a meritocracy, perhaps they would become morally indifferent to the masses.  They get what they deserve.  We see some of that attitude among our politicians these days.

2.  What if the most talented people marry the other most talented people?  Would evolution start down two separate paths?  Would the talented get better and the untalented by stuck at the bottom?  I'm not sure, but it certainly is not impossible.

3.  Could we get a societal Peter Principle?  Talented people would get promoted until they finally hit a position that is a little past their ability and they weren't so talented any more.  Then they would stop there. 

I don't know if any of this is relevant.  But it is food for thought.

Free Speech and Political Ads

I was listening to an old NPR podcast (well, a month old) on 3^rd party political ads.  For example, the SuperPacs (501(c)4s) that don’t have to disclose donors and the 527 organizations that do.  The show had a three person panel that focused more on the honesty and legitimacy (or lack thereof) than the politics.  

 One person said that 3^rd party ads were usually outright lies and hiding behind the anonymity.  One said that they were partially lies and varied depending on the ad and the group behind it.  The most generous panelist said that these ads were mostly based on truth, but were deceptive in the way they presented it – so the net effect may present a skewed version of reality to a less informed viewer.  The result is mostly the same.  Wealthy people and groups leverage their financial resources to confuse the issues in ways candidates and political parties can’t get away with.

Hey nothing wrong with that right?  This is America!  Freedom of Speech!!!  Yeah !!

Brand Image and Freedom to do Business

The Right to Repair bill in Massachusetts demonstrates a few interesting business phenomena.  The ability of companies to engage in particular practices and maintain their brand varies widely.  The automakers are not doing anything that Apple doesn’t also do.  But the result is different. 

For anyone not familiar with the bill, here is some background.  From way back when, cars were simple enough machines that many car owners could do their own maintenance.  For anyone who didn’t want to, there was some auto repair shop in town that would be happy to do it for you.  Car dealers could do it too, but usually for a higher price.

Over time, the market for cars became really price competitive.  Dealers had such low margins on selling cars that they were forced to shift their profit model to add-on services like maintenance.  This created a problem.  If they charged higher prices for maintenance, owners could simply take the car down the street to the local repair shop.  But if not, they couldn’t afford to stay in business selling cars.

More time has now passed and the industry has continued to evolve.  Most cars now are based on computer platforms.  Maintenance has become as much an exercise in IT as it is in mechanics.  Doing maintenance requires a significant investment in computer technology and training.  Only economies of scale justify this investment so the owner is out of the maintenance picture.  It is just the dealer and the local repair shop who remain.  

One last step. The automakers created a technology lock that prevents local repair shops from getting access to the computer code in the car.  These shops can’t do the maintenance and now car owners have to bring the car to the dealer to get maintenance.  No more competition and dealers can charge higher prices.

Now for the Apple side of the story.  If you are the owner of something, regardless of the IP, you have the right to tinker with it.  Some technology vendors get around this by licensing a product to you under certain contractual conditions rather than selling it to you.  Software is a domain where this is common – hence the pages-long end user license agreements that come with software.  Same result as with the automakers.  You need to bring your iPhone to Apple to get it fixed.  You may remember the old practice of “bricking” your phone, which was when Apple would wirelessly find out the phone was hacked and would send an update to the iOS that would make the phone inoperable.

Which takes us to the Right to Repair bill.  The monopoly practices and prices for auto maintenance got the public really angry.  They collected the signatures for a referendum that will require automakers to unlock the car’s computer – allowing local repair shops back into the market.  We never did this with the iPod/iPhone/ iPad (even though it is largely the same system) in part because we have a much more favorable opinion of Apple than we do the local car dealer.  The car dealers and the personal electronics makers did virtually the same thing, but there was public outcry only on one of them.